Simplified Combat

[Thunderfall]

has anyone used that "Simplified Combat" mode in Civ2? I have to admit I haven't tried it... does it make fighting battles alot faster?

 

[MadMelkor]

Sorry haven't tried it !?

 

[BlueMonday]

I never used it in Civ 2. Simplified combat is what civ 1 used to use. What it means is that units don't have firepower or hitpoints, and they don't have levels of strength either. Winning battles become a matter of pure chance. A battleship has a 12:2 chance of destroying a phalanx; meanwhile, the phalanx has a 2:12 chance of winning the battle. Do this long enough and you are guaranteed to lose a battleship to a phalanx.

------------------
"Bad chemicals and bad ideas are the Yin and Yang of madness"
-Kurt Vonnegut "Breakfast of Champions"

 

[Thunderfall]

Thanks for the explanation, BlueMonday. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0> I didn't know that...

So veteran status has no effect in simplified combat games?

[This message has been edited by Thunderfall (edited February 12, 2001).]

 

[shadowdale]

Yes Veteran status has very much to say in the simplified combat if you take the Battleship against a Phalanx again and the Phalanx is veteran then it is 12

2*1,5) - This is one of the reasons that Fortified, veteran Phalanxes in fortifications on mountains almost always wins in Civ1!!!

------------------
Veni Vidi Vici.

 

[shadowdale]

he he he
well 12

2*1,5) was suppose to be:
12 : (2*1,5) = 12:3
Damn those smilies - sometimes...

------------------
Veni Vidi Vici.

 

[drake]

It's not random in any matter to my knowledge actually. As far as I know, it's just like a normal battle. One unit wins and the other loses. The only difference in simplified combat is that whoever wins keep their full bar of energy. So whoever is superior should always win a battle.

I played with it once by accidentand it wasn't much fun.

 

[RedWolf]

Drake...

see it IS random. Whoever is superior SHOULD win a battle. But because of the randomness that doesn't always happen. it's random but the superior unit still has more of a CHANCE of winning due to the attack and defense ratings.

Thats why they included the "hit points" and "firepower" ratings in the Civ II. They wanted to try to take away the randomness yet still allow for the randomness of combat.

[This message has been edited by RedWolf (edited February 12, 2001).]

 

[Thunderfall]

Originally posted by drake:
It's not random in any matter to my knowledge actually. As far as I know, it's just like a normal battle. One unit wins and the other loses. The only difference in simplified combat is that whoever wins keep their full bar of energy. So whoever is superior should always win a battle.

I played with it once by accidentand it wasn't much fun.

hehe... that's what I thought. i think it's in the manual somewhere.

shadowdale, if you can't kill that fortified vet phalanx on a moutain using a battleship, WHAT can u use to kill it? Nukes?? (I hope not) <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>

[This message has been edited by Thunderfall (edited February 12, 2001).]

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by Thunderfall:
hehe... that's what I thought. i think it's in the manual somewhere.

shadowdale, if you can't kill that fortified vet phalanx on a moutain using a battleship, WHAT can u use to kill it? Nukes?? (I hope not) <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>

[This message has been edited by Thunderfall (edited February 12, 2001).]

Why's nobody listening to us!? it IS random but it uses the attack/defense factors to decide who has the greater/lesser chance of winning. So the weaker unit can in fact win sometime because of that randomness.

With the phalanx/battleship thing... the battleship often DOES beat the phalanx. But because of the randomness involved in the equation (and the defense factors added due to the fortifying and the mountain) the phalanx wins too much to be realistic.

THAT'S why they made the more advanced combat system in Civ II. To try to make it more realistic.

 

[BlueMonday]

Usually, in order to destroy the unit fortified in the mountain fortress, I move around him and take out the supporting city (when it's possible, that is).

TeeHee, I just realized the irony of my example. Phalanx desroys Battleship; Thunderfall is a Battleship, I'm a Phalanx. Freudian slip?

 

[Dreadnought]

I tried it once and that was it..why..b/c it sucks. Personally its been awhile since i played it that way but i think i thought there was some chance in it. but as some have said, if there's a 12:2 ratio and the phalanx wins, than it looks like "chance" b/c the phalanx has a shot at winning. In normal civ2 combat the "chance" of the phalanx winning is far less.

that doesn't even make sense..?

 

[reezbot]

Although I never lost a battleship to a phalanx in many a game of civ1, I lost 4 battleships to another battleship I was attacking ( after the 3rd one, the game made a wierd sound like a squealing ooooh ).Well I never used simplified combat in civ2 nor do I want to!

 

[Loaf Warden]

I used to play with simplified combat. I've long since abandonded it; it's really not a very interesting mode of battle.

 

[BlueMonday]

Yeah, I think they just put it in civ 2 in order to ease the change between civ 1 and civ 2.

------------------
"Self-improvement is masturbation, but self-destruction..."